Soladiesel BD® and Soladiesel RD® are the first algal-derived fuels to be successfully road-tested in blended and unblended (B100) forms for thousands of miles in unmodified vehicles.

Both are compatible with existing infrastructures, meet current U.S. and European fuel specifications, and can be used with factory-standard diesel engines without modification. Soladiesel BD® is a Fatty Acid Methyl Ester-based (FAME) fuel, which has demonstrated better cold temperature properties than any commercially available biodiesel. Soladiesel RD® (Renewable #2 Diesel) is ASTM D975 compliant and has demonstrated a cetane rating of over 74, which is more than 60 percent better than standard U.S. diesel fuel. Soladiesel HRF-76 is renewable diesel for ships. It's currently being used as the base fuel for testing and certification of renewable F-76. To date, Solazyme is the only company to provide the U.S. Navy with fully in-spec HRF-76. Solajet™ is the world's first 100 percent algal-derived jet fuel, for both military and commercial applications. The fuel has been used in a U.S. Navy testing and certification program and has met all non-petroleum military specifications for JP5 jet fuel. In the longer term, we expect to sell our oil directly to refiners, accessing their distribution infrastructure.

What a waste to spend that on the gubmint navy.

Should have had BP do it. They have incentive as a private corporation.

Plus it'll never work. I know algae from growing up in 70's Euclid swimming off E 206th beach and that green stringy stuff will clog up a jet engine for sure.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Why do we give 3 Billion dollars a year to Israel?

In part because nobody else will, and their survival is important.

Arab states are funded to some degree by us, but also by Russia, China, European countries and others.

The other thing that is important to remember is that our aid to Israel is in large part conditioned on their spending most of it on U.S-made military hardware, jets, missiles, etc., which creates...or at least retains US jobs. Also used to pay off debt to us.(don't ask me why we provide aid to pay off debt from past aid)

A quick search turned up this article which has lots of good info on how our aid to Israel has evolved over the years...what it's for, and what the terms and conditions for it are. They have limits on how much of it can be spent in Israel (in one year, it was $400 million max out of the $3 billion or so we provided.)

I didn't read every word of this, but I did see that in one year 74% of it was earmarked to return to US coffers in the form of military hardware. Don't know if that's a representative year or not.

Easiest answer to your question is that Israel's survival is of crucial strategic and moral importance to us. They are completely surrounded by enemies who want to kill every last one of them as their life's goal. And their fate is intimately tied up with ours.

They call them the Little Satan after all. Their enemies won't consider the job done when/if the "Little" Satan is taken care of.

The grand total of all of our foreign aid constitutes about one half of one percent of our federal spending. It's about a third of what we flush down the toilet every year in Medicare fraud. I'd say we're getting a better return sending them money to buy our jet fighters.

Off topic I know, but it seemed like the question was not totally rhetorical. Right?

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

Soladiesel BD® and Soladiesel RD® are the first algal-derived fuels to be successfully road-tested in blended and unblended (B100) forms for thousands of miles in unmodified vehicles.

Both are compatible with existing infrastructures, meet current U.S. and European fuel specifications, and can be used with factory-standard diesel engines without modification. Soladiesel BD® is a Fatty Acid Methyl Ester-based (FAME) fuel, which has demonstrated better cold temperature properties than any commercially available biodiesel. Soladiesel RD® (Renewable #2 Diesel) is ASTM D975 compliant and has demonstrated a cetane rating of over 74, which is more than 60 percent better than standard U.S. diesel fuel. Soladiesel HRF-76 is renewable diesel for ships. It's currently being used as the base fuel for testing and certification of renewable F-76. To date, Solazyme is the only company to provide the U.S. Navy with fully in-spec HRF-76. Solajet™ is the world's first 100 percent algal-derived jet fuel, for both military and commercial applications. The fuel has been used in a U.S. Navy testing and certification program and has met all non-petroleum military specifications for JP5 jet fuel. In the longer term, we expect to sell our oil directly to refiners, accessing their distribution infrastructure.

What a waste to spend that on the gubmint navy.

Should have had BP do it. They have incentive as a private corporation.

Plus it'll never work. I know algae from growing up in 70's Euclid swimming off E 206th beach and that green stringy stuff will clog up a jet engine for sure.

If you'da clicked the link and become informed you'da seen they're in bed with Chevron and Honeywell already...two Amercican companies if I'm not mistaken

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

I am not connecting the dots JB, where did he bitch about the government in that? You were the one that said BP should do it. Do what? Chevron has their hands in the cookie jar already, are you saying Chevron should do it on their own with out government assistance? Is that your beef?

If so that does not come close to jiving with your "Obama should invest in green energy" Thingy.

Connect the dots for me, because I don't get what you are enough to put 2 pesos in.

Ziner wrote:I am not connecting the dots JB, where did he bitch about the government in that? You were the one that said BP should do it. Do what? Chevron has their hands in the cookie jar already, are you saying Chevron should do it on their own with out government assistance? Is that your beef?

If so that does not come close to jiving with your "Obama should invest in green energy" Thingy.

Connect the dots for me, because I don't get what you are enough to put 2 pesos in.

Its a fakkin' geat example of public / private partnership, Z-man. It's the shit. I couldn't agree more with Ron. And with any luck the GOP shitcans the whole ethonol subsidy BS when they get a hold of this so food prices can come under control instead of pandering to the midwest swing states.

But that's not why I called.

Q: So why is this productive and strategic government / private sector project initiative good when everything else the government possibly tries to do is the devil's work in 999 of 1000 other posts without a shred of analysis?

From my first glance at this, it looks like it's not really an example of "public/private partnership" on the order of NASA, TVA or the Hoover Dam to get either happy or upset about. At least no more so than the feds buying satellites from TRW or rubber seals from Parker-Hannifin.

The company is privately held...including among its investors a couple of experienced refiners and numerous private VC firms. As far as I can see, the US Navy is nothing more than a customer in the business relationship It may be a significant and important one I'm sure, but still not a player with a financial...read:taxpayer....stake in its success or failure to make a competitive product that can stand on its own in the marketplace.

No indication the government is subsidizing the research, let alone getting involved in price supports, mandates, or the (often political)picking of "green" energy lottery winners that gives government involvement in such matters a bad name. If it's successful, the Navy has a green fuel source...presumably along with everybody else. If it doesn't, they keep looking....along with everybody else.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

LOL, this is funny after Dan's post. Kind of disappointed I was too lazy to get involved.

Couldn't sleep this morning and was watching a show on History talking about how private investors became very very rich prospecting for oil, they put up their own dough for the chance at a lotto ticket. This is no different, private investors can see the pot of gold. I don't even mind the government, helping them along, but it isn't dogma to have more confidence in a major breakthrough coming from private industry instead of government. After that last rant, if I didn't know your centrist-ass better I would think you are just critical of anything right of center regardless of the analysis.

My intent wasn't to rebut or disagree with JB, because on this topic at least, we seem to agree. (that not all public-private partnerships are doomed to fail...it's just that this doesn't appear to be one of them, as they are traditionally defined)

Like you Ziner, I am skeptical if not downright dismissive of the government's ability to pick "winners" in private development, whether it be solar, wind, fuel or bridge construction. If the government is the customer or the contractor..or the funder of R&D, the entrepreneurs who stand to profit should be holding the bag...by way of some "deposit" or sizable financial stake that they are prepared to lose if the project isn't a success. To me, that's the only way to do energy development right. (Do we need to create another Ethanol-type boondoggle to prove this?)

What frosts my ass is when some politically-connected firm gets a carte-blanche $100 million government contract to develop squirrel-powered vehicles or something, and two years later the taxpayer has eaten the cost and we've got an empty factory and 200 laid-off workers to show for it, because no one had to prove it was viable before they launched into it with taxpayer cash.

I would love to see these VC firms make billions of dollars in profits...but only if they develop a winning product that becomes wildly successful on its own merits. They will create jobs and generate millions in income taxes and on taxes on their profits. Who's against that....other than some hardcore capitalism-haters?

Fact is, there remain people who would (and will) oppose these kinds of projects precisely because someone will get rich doing it. We need more, not fewer rich people.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

I have a friend/ex-coworker who left his job to join a small start up company. The company received a government contract to invent a medical device which had very limited use and btw...already has existed since the 1980's. It was absurd. The device was supposed to detect the level of consciousness in a sedated patient. It's design was exactly like the one on the market that is used but frowned upon for being unreliable. Long story short, he works there for 3 years until the grant runs out. Now the company is dissolved , no new device was created, and he's getting 99 weeks of unemployemnt. Complete total government waste. We (taxpayers)just paid a company thousands of dollars to create a flashlight.

Rep. Nunes (R-CA) has recently come out with a comprehensive energy development plan that I just read about the other day. He proposes exactly the kind of private "stake" I was referring to. The two links below are to the text of his plan and to an article in the Weekly Standard where I saw it.

Nunes’s Roadmap hinges on at least one key insight: advances in energy efficiency are often inextricably linked with energy production.

The U.S. government controls a number of resources that could be used to increase energy production. The legislation would open up the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling -- which is estimated to contain enough oil and natural gas to meet America’s energy needs for about 60 years. It would also open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling as well as encourage domestic energy production elsewhere.

The catch is this: Any profits that the government makes from increased domestic energy production would go into a trust fund for renewable energy sources, as well as new research and development.

And here’s where the Roadmap is especially innovative. Until now, government subsidies for renewable energy have been handed out in a haphazard manner akin to throwing darts at predominantly-Democratic campaign donors.

So Nunes set out to answer his own question: “How do you disperse [subsidies] in a free market way, so you’re not picking winners and losers?” His solution is somewhat ingenious: Money from the newly created trust fund would be handed out in a “reverse auction,” where private sector companies would compete for government energy contracts based on who can produce the most energy for the least amount of money.

Those that participate in the auction would forgo existing tax credits for renewable energy production, and if they can’t fulfill the the terms of the contract, the government keeps the money. The idea has the potential to set off a venture capital bonanza, concomitantly spurring innovation and creating jobs.

---

I have no idea of the viability of this kind of plan. But it's a plan, and as such it's worth considering and discussing. No matter what, increasing domestic energy development is a winning political issue, and the party that can develop and articulate and sell its proposals will be better off for it in upcoming elections.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

danwismar wrote:I have no idea of the viability of this kind of plan. But it's a plan, and as such it's worth considering and discussing. No matter what, increasing domestic energy development is a winning political issue, and the party that can develop and articulate and sell its proposals will be better off for it in upcoming elections.

Have my doubts that anyone could get people to buy in to something that requires as much thought as that. Can't be slapped up on a "drill, baby drill" sign or on a poster with a oil covered seagull.

danwismar wrote: The legislation would open up the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling -- which is estimated to contain enough oil and natural gas to meet America’s energy needs for about 60 years.

Amount of oil that could be produced from offshore U.S. = 86 billion barrels (conservative estimate) Amount of oil consumed per day in U.S. = 20.7 million barrelsHow long it would take that oil to be consumed = 11 years

Mostly it's furthering our reliance on a finite resource, and a poor investment.

Yes, it's a finite resource, but our proven oil reserves increase year by year rather than decrease, as detection, exploration and technology all improve.

And our reliance is our reliance. It doesn't stop being our reliance by refusing to develop more domestic sources. It just forces us to depend on other unreliable nations and regions to get it.

It's also why the plan put forward also emphasizes nuclear, shale oil, gas and other sources.

The anti-domestic development folks never want to acknowledge that if we don't drill the oil, someone else will. And that someone will in most cases be a country with lesser technology...no EPA, and often a nation with no environmental concerns at all. Therefore the environmental arguments against US oil development ring hollow and unserious.

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken

If all the liberals would just buy an overpriced Volt those 86 billion barrels would last like 22 years.

We are going to be using a significant amount of oil for the foreseeable future. To not use more of our resources, producing more jobs here, and reducing the amount of money we send out of our country because it is "only enough fuel to cover the entire country for 11 years" sounds an awful lot like that dogma JB dropped on us "nutjobs" up thread.

You're right matt, point is there is a significantly larger amount of oil there than estimated 20 and 30 years ago so we need to keep drilling and drill some more. Just b/c we should get off of foreign oil and look for alternative energy sources doesn't mean you stop relying on a resource you have plenty of. You can be for alternatives energy solutions and also be for drilling.

There's talk Obama will make an announcement next week or so about reopening up drilling and make a real hard push for new drilling as well, that would be great news.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Libya is the perfect example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Obama and his friends spent years decrying Bush for military action in Iraq, saying they posed no direct threat to the US, regime change is wrong, no blood for oil, blah blah blah. Then Libya happens, and we have Obama coming out with statements like: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." At least Bush was honest. At least he told you what he was going to do, then went out and did it and didn't incessently flip flop.

Obama on Iraq:"We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat."

Where is the imminent threat from Libya? Are we seeing the formation of the "Obama Doctrine?" Are we now expected to intervene in Syira, Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran...even China because of humanitarian crises? Or did we just pick Libya because it was easier? If not, why Libya?

Bush knew what he wanted to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, told the country and the rest of the world what he wanted to do, then went out and tried to do it. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it was at least an open and clear decision. What is Libya? What is the endgame? Who are the rebels? What change are we trying to effect? What happens when the Mauritanians decide to revolt? What happens when the Iranian people rise up again?

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

OK...so now we intervene everywhere there are "atrocities"? Or is this just more talk?

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

Libya is the perfect example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Obama and his friends spent years decrying Bush for military action in Iraq, saying they posed no direct threat to the US, regime change is wrong, no blood for oil, blah blah blah. Then Libya happens, and we have Obama coming out with statements like: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." At least Bush was honest. At least he told you what he was going to do, then went out and did it and didn't incessently flip flop.

Bush was not honest. He said we were going to Iraq because Saddam had WMDs and he was a threat to us and our friends in the region. Remember Colin Powell at the U.N.? Remember the "Mobile bioweapons labs"........ that didn't exist? I'd say that he was the exact opposite of honest, "dishonest" if you will.

The action in Libya is no different than what we did from the end of the 1st Gulf War untill Brainless II blundered his way into the 2nd war.

There is clearly a difference between Libya and Iraq. If you can't see it.... then I don't know what to tell you.

Libya is the perfect example of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Obama and his friends spent years decrying Bush for military action in Iraq, saying they posed no direct threat to the US, regime change is wrong, no blood for oil, blah blah blah. Then Libya happens, and we have Obama coming out with statements like: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." At least Bush was honest. At least he told you what he was going to do, then went out and did it and didn't incessently flip flop.

Bush was not honest. He said we were going to Iraq because Saddam had WMDs and he was a threat to us and our friends in the region. Remember Colin Powell at the U.N.? Remember the "Mobile bioweapons labs"........ that didn't exist? I'd say that he was the exact opposite of honest, "dishonest" if you will.

The action in Libya is no different than what we did from the end of the 1st Gulf War untill Brainless II blundered his way into the 2nd war.

There is clearly a difference between Libya and Iraq. If you can't see it.... then I don't know what to tell you.

Did I say we invaded Libya?

Bush, Powell and everyone else in the administration honestly beleived based on the intelligence (including Tenet and the Brits) that there were WMD's in Iraq. And there were. Not on the scale we expected to find, but there were. Saddam's people did such a good job fooling him that they had the capabilities that they managed to fool everyone else too.

Of course there is a difference between Iraq and Libya. Just for fun, pretend I didn't say anything about Iraq, Bush or anything other than Obama and Libya. You convinently ignored all of that. Answer this:

Obama on Iraq:"We need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat."

Where is the imminent threat from Libya? Are we seeing the formation of the "Obama Doctrine?" Are we now expected to intervene in Syira, Ivory Coast, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran...even China because of humanitarian crises? Or did we just pick Libya because it was easier? If not, why Libya?

What is Libya? What is the endgame? Who are the rebels? What change are we trying to effect? What happens when the Mauritanians decide to revolt? What happens when the Iranian people rise up again?

“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and, more profoundly, our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

OK...so now we intervene everywhere there are "atrocities"? Or is this just more talk?

So ignore Bush, ignore Iraq because your mind is already made up on that. Tell me what the Obama doctrine is. Tell me what we're doing in Libya, and who exactly we're doing it for. Tell me why we're doing it there and not in other hot spots around the globe. And tell my why it isn't a double standard and an example of Obama saying one thing at one time and doing another.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

Bush, Powell and everyone else in the administration honestly beleived based on the intelligence (including Tenet and the Brits) that there were WMD's in Iraq. And there were. Not on the scale we expected to find, but there were. Saddam's people did such a good job fooling him that they had the capabilities that they managed to fool everyone else too

Just stop. Please. There where no WMDs in Iraq. (here's where the link comes about finding mortar shells from 1985 that might have contained Sarin at some point). My favorite part was when Cheney said we would be greeted by the Iraqi people with flowers, hugs, and gum drop kisses. That was just probably more bad intel.

Tell me what the Obama doctrine is

I have no idea. A made up phrase? I know what the "Monroe Doctrine" is, which is bullshit because Monroe didn't write the damn thing, John Quincy Adams did. But never mind that. The OD can be whatever you want it to be. It's about the Marxist Muslim Atheist New World Order Free Healthcare And Kill Whitey agenda. Or whatever, you pick.

As for Libya........ I assume we're enforcing a UN backed No Fly Zone, the same way we did in Iraq pre Brainless II. I assume we're trying to prevent Muomar's aircraft from crushing the Rebels who have no real air defense other than small arms.

And in Intenational politics there is ALWAYS A DOUBLE STANDARD. It's why we haven't attacked North Korea. Despite them having WMDs and having threatened us and our allies. Oh and the shit they do to their own people. I think it's less about what you do than who your friends are. (Bahrain and the Saudis for example)

When it comes to Libya, Obama is showing why a community organizer is not fit to be President. Straight up amateur hour going on right now.

So we lob some cruise missiles in to Libya, following the lead set for by the French and Brits, which is embarrassing enough. So now what? He is playing politics. What is the plan now? He has to send the CIA in to Libya to figure out who exactly the Libyan rebels are and if we really want them in power. Might have been something that this "most intelligent president ever" would think to do before helping to weakening their dictator's military. He has no fucking clue what to do. We have already started to help them, so if we let them get slaughtered the blood is firmly on his hands along with the other countries that helped. Besides that if we help them initially only to realize we don't want to help them he looks even more foolish. If he does want to back them he is afraid to arm them mostly for political reasons I would guess.

He tries to talk tough and says he wants Gaddafi out of power, but said he will not send in ground troops. So he isn't sure if he can support the rebels, has publicly stated Gaddafi must go, won't send in ground troops and just lobs cruise missiles for afar hoping it will all work itself out.

Fucking. amateur. hour.

What is really happening is him trying to mesh his bullshit campaign rhetoric with actually having to do the job of president. Now that hope and change are long out the window he realizes there is a actually a job that has to be done. The interesting struggle is watching him attempt to please the whacko left and realize the job of president forces tough decisions that are out of the comfort zone of his far left ideology.

When is it again that Guantanamo is getting closed again?

Dude was a big talker on the campaign trail until he gets in the big boy seat. Rumor is they had to get rid of the chair that other president's used in the oval office and install this bad boy for Barry, the threat of him shitting himself was too great

Ziner wrote:When it comes to Libya, Obama is showing why a community organizer is not fit to be President. Straight up amateur hour going on right now.

So we lob some cruise missiles in to Libya, following the lead set for by the French and Brits, which is embarrassing enough. So now what? He is playing politics. What is the plan now? He has to send the CIA in to Libya to figure out who exactly the Libyan rebels are and if we really want them in power. Might have been something that this "most intelligent president ever" would think to do before helping to weakening their dictator's military. He has no fucking clue what to do. We have already started to help them, so if we let them get slaughtered the blood is firmly on his hands along with the other countries that helped. Besides that if we help them initially only to realize we don't want to help them he looks even more foolish. If he does want to back them he is afraid to arm them mostly for political reasons I would guess.

He tries to talk tough and says he wants Gaddafi out of power, but said he will not send in ground troops. So he isn't sure if he can support the rebels, has publicly stated Gaddafi must go, won't send in ground troops and just lobs cruise missiles for afar hoping it will all work itself out.

Fucking. amateur. hour.

What is really happening is him trying to mesh his bullshit campaign rhetoric with actually having to do the job of president. Now that hope and change are long out the window he realizes there is a actually a job that has to be done. The interesting struggle is watching him attempt to please the whacko left and realize the job of president forces tough decisions that are out of the comfort zone of his far left ideology.

When is it again that Guantanamo is getting closed again?

Dude was a big talker on the campaign trail until he gets in the big boy seat. Rumor is they had to get rid of the chair that other president's used in the oval office and install this bad boy for Barry, the threat of him shitting himself was too great

crybaby.jpg

You base rube, is there nothing you won't squirt a few tears over you mumbling girl.

Oh CDT, you could at least to pretend to defend him, or admit I am right.

No crying over this, I was just hoping you could enlighten me to the ways of warfare by Barry. Tell me the thought process to this thing since you clearly knew how dumb Brainless II was in his war conquests. Sure looks like someone is over his head.

Ziner wrote:Oh CDT, you could at least to pretend to defend him, or admit I am right.

No crying over this, I was just hoping you could enlighten me to the ways of warfare by Barry. Tell me the thought process to this thing since you clearly knew how dumb Brainless II was in his war conquests. Sure looks like someone is over his head.

lol "War Conquests".

That jabbering douche couldn't conquer a damn 7/11.

I don't see what he's doing wrong, I only hear the same clucking and crying that comes from the right. They are the biggest pussies on the planet by far. They cry if he does this or that it doesn't matter they cry and cry like little babies with shit in their diaper. Which is perfect since they are in fact full of shit.

I cannot wait for these gutless queefs to destroy each other in the Primaries. The idea of that disgusting fat pig Newt's personal life being thrown back is slob face is hilarious to me.

I'm a centerist.

BTW this is for people with a sense of humor. Because it's funny....... and 100% true.

Ziner wrote:Oh CDT, you could at least to pretend to defend him, or admit I am right.

No crying over this, I was just hoping you could enlighten me to the ways of warfare by Barry. Tell me the thought process to this thing since you clearly knew how dumb Brainless II was in his war conquests. Sure looks like someone is over his head.

lol "War Conquests".

That jabbering douche couldn't conquer a damn 7/11.

I don't see what he's doing wrong, I only hear the same clucking and crying that comes from the right. They are the biggest pussies on the planet by far. They cry if he does this or that it doesn't matter they cry and cry like little babies with shit in their diaper. Which is perfect since they are in fact full of shit.

I cannot wait for these gutless queefs to destroy each other in the Primaries. The idea of that disgusting fat pig Newt's personal life being thrown back is slob face is hilarious to me.

I'm a centerist.

BTW this is for people with a sense of humor. Because it's funny....... and 100% true.

^^^^How can they be full of shit if the shit is in the diaper? i see a contradiction there. perhaps formerly full of shit?

Ziner wrote:Oh CDT, you could at least to pretend to defend him, or admit I am right.

No crying over this, I was just hoping you could enlighten me to the ways of warfare by Barry. Tell me the thought process to this thing since you clearly knew how dumb Brainless II was in his war conquests. Sure looks like someone is over his head.

lol "War Conquests".

That jabbering douche couldn't conquer a damn 7/11.

I don't see what he's doing wrong, I only hear the same clucking and crying that comes from the right. They are the biggest pussies on the planet by far. They cry if he does this or that it doesn't matter they cry and cry like little babies with shit in their diaper. Which is perfect since they are in fact full of shit.

I cannot wait for these gutless queefs to destroy each other in the Primaries. The idea of that disgusting fat pig Newt's personal life being thrown back is slob face is hilarious to me.

I'm a centerist.

BTW this is for people with a sense of humor. Because it's funny....... and 100% true.

^^^^How can they be full of shit if the shit is in the diaper? i see a contradiction there. perhaps formerly full of shit?

To protect the Rebs from Muomar's ariforce, like we did with the Kurds and Shia in Iraq.

I just ain't into arming Rebs when I don't know what they want. Most of them are fighting with rocks.

No blood for oil!!!

Seriously though, that is what I was talking about up thread that you didnt address. Why are we protecting the rebels if we are not firmly behind them? It doesn't make sense. BTW I was listening to Ed Schultz today and he said only righties call them Rebels, lefties call them freedom fighters....even though Obama doesn't know which they are yet.

Oh and from what I know we don't use Libyan oil, from what I understand it goes mostly to Europe.

This whole discussion is just shades of gray. Bush/Obama, Righties/Lefties (even you centrists!!) - it doesn't matter. It's much more about the hypocrisy of America's role on the world stage. If we are to be the world's po po, then we should do it on our terms and not feel we need to justify our actions to anyone.

Yes, we watched the genocide in Rwanda 'cause we have no allies there because we have no interests there because there are no natural resources there. We will pick and choose where we commit our armed forces and if the rest of the world doesn't like it tough shit.

Convincing the US public of that approach is another matter, however.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team